The petitioner sought transfer of cheque dishonour proceedings from Guwahati to Barpeta, citing residency and convenience. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that witnesses were located in Guwahati and the legal notice was served there, making the existing jurisdiction appropriate and the transfer unnecessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010163092025
2025:GAU-AS:10182
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Tr.P.(Crl.)/34/2025
MD FAYZAL HOQUE S/O MD. JALIM UDDIN
R/O DOMORKUCHI, BIKASH NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 4, HOUSE NO. 5, P.O. SONKUCHI,P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
ABDUL GOFUR MONDAL SON OF JALAL UDDIN MONDAL R/O NO. I, BAGHMARA CHAR, P.O. BAGHMARA P.S. ALOPOTTI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781122.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DILIP DEY, MR. T SK
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT
Date : 04-08-2025
Page No.# 2/6
proceedings of a complaint case, C.R.[N.I.] Case no. 5317C /2022 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta at Barpeta.
Page No.# 3/6
by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Government registered contractor and is a permanent resident of Barpeta district. The petitioner is involved in various construction works in Barpeta as well as in the other neighbouring districts of Barpeta. The petitioner has further averred that the respondentcomplainant is also a resident of Barpeta and it is reflected in the complaint itself that the respondent is a resident of Baghmara Char, P.O. – Baghmara, District - Barpeta.
[a] if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or
[b] if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.
Explanation.— For the purposes of clause [a], where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.
Page No.# 4/6
Page No.# 5/6
the complaint case, C.R.[N.I.] Case no. 5317C /2022, had issued the cheque under reference from an account maintained by him at Ganeshguri Branch of HDFC Bank. The bank where the cheque was presented by the respondentcomplainant for collection of the cheque amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was Bharalumukh Branch, Guwahati of AXIS Bank Ltd. The legal notice issued after dishonour of the cheque due to insufficiency of fund in the account maintained by the petitioner was served upon the petitioner’s address at Guwahati. In the complaint, the respondent-complainant has named the witnesses whom the respondent-complainant would want to bring to adduce evidence on his behalf in the proceeding of C.R.[N.I.] Case no. 5317C /2022. Among the listed witnesses, the respondent-complainant has named himself as one of the witnesses. Three of the witnesses are officials from HDFC Bank, Ganeshguri Branch; AXIS Bank Ltd., Bharalumukh Branch; and the Post-Office, Meghdoot Bhawan, and all these witnesses are from Guwahati, District – Kamrup [M].
Page No.# 6/6
urge on behalf of the respondent-complainant that as the respondentcomplainant hails from Barpeta he would face inconvenience to attend the proceedings of C.R.[N.I.] Case no. 5317C /2022 at Guwahati because it is the respondent-complainant who has instituted the proceedings at Guwahati.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should transfer the cheque dishonour trial from Guwahati to Barpeta for the convenience of the accused under Section 447 BNSS?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bridgestone India Private Limited v. Inderpal SinghReferred¶31
Bridgestone India Private Limited. Vs. Inderpal Singh, reported in [2016] 2 SCC 75 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MD Fayzal Hoque
Abdul Gofur Mondal
Manish Choudhury
As recorded by the court registry
A petition to transfer a criminal case from one court to another.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
